Yes, I agree. But I think he should be mature enough to assume that not everybody can be saved. Even by Superman. Although how he gets to that point is probably interesting to check.

I think being mature enough not to assume that, and ACTUALLY being faced with the deaths you couldn't stop, are two different things though.

The guy has Super hearing and Super vision. He intervenes in so many accidents/natural disasters. When you try and think of what that would be like - how many entire families he's probably unearthed under piles of rubble, pregnant women, little children etc... THAT'S what makes Superman a different kind of hero than perhaps any other Superhero to me.

He cares SO much about people, and yet he has to see, right in front of his eyes, the suffering that is caused by his own limitations. Has to swallow down his guilt, his frustration and his sadness, and just carry on trying to make as much of a difference as he can.

If they could show just a little bit of that, they'd connect the audience to him in a way that we've never really seen before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Showtime

Finally had a chance to actually read every post in this thread...

The argument here is that, "Oh you haven't seen the movie, you don't know if it is a retread?" My question, "You haven't seen it, how do you know it's not then?" It works the same for both sides of the fence.

I think the problem is people take retread to mean something bad and derogatory and for some reason think they have to defend the fact it isn't, as if the movie is somehow something they created. On the other side, those using the word "retread" are trying to turn it into a derogatory word to upset others.

I'll completely conceed to that.

When someone makes a thread about how SR was criticised for being a retread, and asking whether MOS will be as well, you can't help but see the negative assosiation in the word 'retread' implied there.

No, I don't know how this film will turn out, and it is in such early stages. But I will defend that it doesn't look like it's going to be a retread in the negative sense of the word.

I did try and make it clear that it was only the negative sense of the word that I was discussing, but looking back I can see that my tone was one of personal defensiveness, which wasn't exactly helping me get my point across

Quote:

Originally Posted by Showtime

We can only go by what all of us know, and by all of us, I mean ALL OF US on the forum.

If you take what you know about the film, is it less like Superman 1 & 2 or more like Superman 1 & 2?

This is my opinion, what they are doing is taking Superman 1 & 2 and mixing it with some of the Abrams script and taking a heavy influence from Smallville/Jon Byrne with a little Superman For All Seasons & Birthright. You can't deny the Superman 1 & 2 influence. It's right in front of you. They are modernizing the Superman tale for a new generation. I'm not saying you're going to see that exact film (Superman 1 & 2) on screen as a flat out remake.

The term came from the retreading of a tire.

They are "recapping" and "remoulding" a previously worn superhero which has already gone through the film making process in order to extend the useful life of the character on screen for a new generation. I think that is exactly the right term, the problem is some of you are getting so sensitive on both sides of the aisle.

It's not something "new and fresh" and an "amazing new concept." If that were the case, we wouldn't be seeing an origin where Pa Kent dies, Zod and FaorUrsa invade, the military attempts to coral Zod & FaorUrsa, so on and so forth. What they are doing is covering the lost years of Superman, just like they are doing for The Amazing Spider-Man. It is what it is. Doesn't mean the movie isn't going to be good though?

We're getting caught up on words. People should be able to debate without being so sensitive, and there shouldn't be any name calling and bickering. I don't care WHO YOU ARE. If you can't be civil, I'll be very aware of it. I'm watching. If C. Lee shows up, you're all screwed. So debate. Civilly. Again, this goes for EVERYBODY.

I guess I just want to believe the things that I read about it NOT being anything like the old films.

Like Henry Cavill saying he isn't even watching them, or any television show or previous incarnation because he wants his portrayal to come solely from the comics and the script.

Not to mention all the interviews with Nolan and Snyder that mention how the story was concieved and the repeated emphasis on the word reboot.

And why do I want to believe that?

Well, if i'm being completely honest with myself, it's because i'm not a fan of the old movies. And that version of Superman, to the majority of the public who don't know much about him, is all that people know.

I guess i'm so desperate for a different version, for the world to see the side of Superman that i love, and that they perhaps never even knew existed... that I do get a little defensive when someone suggests that this is just going to be a retread of Superman 1 and 2.

Because I really hope it's not. And I really don't think, from everything i've read, seen, heard etc so far, that it will be.

But i'll keep said defensiveness to a minimum from now on, because you are right, and everyone is going to see things differently, and we should be able to discuss that without taking things to heart

I think being mature enough not to assume that, and ACTUALLY being faced with the deaths you couldn't stop, are two different things though.

The guy has Super hearing and Super vision. He intervenes in so many accidents/natural disasters. When you try and think of what that would be like - how many entire families he's probably unearthed under piles of rubble, pregnant women, little children etc... THAT'S what makes Superman a different kind of hero than perhaps any other Superhero to me.

He cares SO much about people, and yet he has to see, right in front of his eyes, the suffering that is caused by his own limitations. Has to swallow down his guilt, his frustration and his sadness, and just carry on trying to make as much of a difference as he can.

If they could show just a little bit of that, they'd connect the audience to him in a way that we've never really seen before.

I'll completely conceed to that.

When someone makes a thread about how SR was criticised for being a retread, and asking whether MOS will be as well, you can't help but see the negative assosiation in the word 'retread' implied there.

No, I don't know how this film will turn out, and it is in such early stages. But I will defend that it doesn't look like it's going to be a retread in the negative sense of the word.

I did try and make it clear that it was only the negative sense of the word that I was discussing, but looking back I can see that my tone was one of personal defensiveness, which wasn't exactly helping me get my point across

I guess I just want to believe the things that I read about it NOT being anything like the old films.

Like Henry Cavill saying he isn't even watching them, or any television show or previous incarnation because he wants his portrayal to come solely from the comics and the script.

Not to mention all the interviews with Nolan and Snyder that mention how the story was concieved and the repeated emphasis on the word reboot.

And why do I want to believe that?

Well, if i'm being completely honest with myself, it's because i'm not a fan of the old movies. And that version of Superman, to the majority of the public who don't know much about him, is all that people know.

I guess i'm so desperate for a different version, for the world to see the side of Superman that i love, and that they perhaps never even knew existed... that I do get a little defensive when someone suggests that this is just going to be a retread of Superman 1 and 2.

Because I really hope it's not. And I really don't think, from everything i've read, seen, heard etc so far, that it will be.

But i'll keep said defensiveness to a minimum from now on, because you are right, and everyone is going to see things differently, and we should be able to discuss that without taking things to heart